3
IRSC October 2008 - Denver, USA 3 The directives: Directive 2004/50/EC related to interoperability and amending directives 96/48/EC (HS) and 2001/16/EC (Conventional Rail) – article 14-1: « Each Member State shall authorise the placing in service of those structural subsystems constituing the trans- European high speed/conventional rail system which are located or operated in its territory. » Directive 2004/49/EC related to safety – article 14-1: Placing in service of in-use rolling stock: « The rolling stock that has been authorised to be placed in service in one Member State and is not fully covered by the relevant TSI shall be authorised to be placed in service in another or other Member States … » EU regulations requirements

5
IRSC October 2008 - Denver, USA 5 Today, there are very few vehicles or locomotives able to comply with all the TSIs requirements. Consequently, each of them must be authorised following the entire procedure of technical file. This situation raises up various problems that we can consider as obstacles for crossing the borders. We can set out three main obstacles: time, money and overloading of work for NSAs Practice

6
IRSC October 2008 - Denver, USA 6 First obstacle: TIME The directive 2004/49/EC allows a 4 months period to each NSA to make its decision regarding the file submitted. In practice, it means that a locomotive needs at least one year in order to be authorised in 3 member States and to be able to operate services across the borders.

7
IRSC October 2008 - Denver, USA 7 Second obstacle: MONEY When studying the files submitted, each NSA can request additional proof (tests for instance) to verify the technical compliance of the rolling stock with its national network: the laboratories in charge of tests are not working for free! The documents included in the files must be presented in national language, requiring expensive translations. Usually, the NSAs are requesting payment for studying the files. While NSAs are studying files, the rolling stock cannot operate services and the RU is loosing commercial opportunities.

8
IRSC October 2008 - Denver, USA 8 Third obstacle: overloading of work for NSAs Each of the NSAs involved will do the same work for the same type of locomotive. It means a big amount of files for a few new technologies. At least three good reasons for finding a way to improve the European procedure!

9
IRSC October 2008 - Denver, USA 9 Cross-acceptance principles Classification of technical criteria required for authorisation in three categories: A: equivalent rules for all the NSAs – acceptable once for all B: rules partly equivalent – require additional verification according to national rules C: criteria based on national rules only – must be fully verified by each NSA No requirement for translation of documents in national languages.

10
IRSC October 2008 - Denver, USA 10 The cross-acceptance agreement requires a huge preparation between NSAs in order to assess each criteria according to national safety rules in each country involved. It requires also a tight follow up by the NSAs according to the evolutions of the European (TSIs) and national safety rules.

11
IRSC October 2008 - Denver, USA 11 Examples Agreements already in force: Between Germany and France for locomotives, passenger carriages (high speed and conventional rail) Between Belgium, Luxembourg and France for wagons Between Switzerland and France for wagons and for locomotives and passenger carriages (high speed and conventional rail)

14
IRSC October 2008 - Denver, USA 14 The future The principles of cross-acceptance agreements, initiated by French and German NSAs, are increasing all around Europe. The outcome of this approach must be a continuous chain of agreements through Europe making possible for the operators to receive the necessary authorisations in a reasonable period of time.

15
IRSC October 2008 - Denver, USA 15 Conclusion Results of the approach: saving time and money for the operators using the rolling stock saving time for the NSAs involved strengthening confidence between NSAs contributing to harmonization of safety criteria in Europe